Watch

Psycho

Your probable score

Psycho

1998

Suspense/Thriller, Horror

1h 45m

Intrigued by the notion of taking an intact, undeniable classic and seeing what would happen if it were made again - with a nearly identical shooting script - but with contemporary filmmaking techniques, Gus Van Sant recreates the motion picture Psycho. (Universal Studios)

Psycho

1998

Suspense/Thriller, Horror

1h 45m

Your probable score

Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Avg Percentile 30.16% from 2751 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(2764)

Compact view

clear

Compact view

Show

Sort

frederic_g54

Rated 16 Oct 2008

Let's face it, there are worse ways to spend 60 million $. Wait, what's that? [Inaudible whispering] Correction, folks, I've just been told this is the worst.

Rated 16 Oct 2008

Report

Pickpocket

Rated 11 Jan 2009

Pointless, sure, and totally unnecessary. It isn't as bad as you've heard but it offers nothing that the original didn't do. Just watch the Hitchcock version and skip this.

Rated 11 Jan 2009

Report

Jeb

Rated 20 Sep 2008

Things to do for the day : Hunt down Van Sant

Rated 20 Sep 2008

Report

BillyShears

Rated 09 Apr 2008

The only thing I liked about this movie was William H. Macy. I was kinda on the fence about it when I watched it until it had the Vince Vaughn jacking off shot with over the top noises when peeping. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh Anne Heche was a blight during the 90s

Rated 09 Apr 2008

Report

DTI

Rated 05 Mar 2007

If you thought something was missing during the original Psycho and a masturbation scene could fill that void, there are still myriad reasons to avoid this movie.

Rated 05 Mar 2007

Report

Jasongirl67

Rated 10 Jul 2019

Not sure why but this movie did nothing for me And I think there in lies the problem it's basically the same movie except for color and different actors Perhaps it may have been better if they could have gotten Jamie Lee Curtis to play her mother's iconic role But even that may not have been able to save this movie

Rated 10 Jul 2019

Report

terrymac

Rated 15 Nov 2018

An odd experiment. It feels like a jigsaw that hasn't been put back together properly. Just feels off.

Rated 15 Nov 2018

Report

maxfischar

Rated 04 Mar 2008

When asked why he made this film, Gus Van Sant replied: "So no one else will ever have to." I sort of see it as an anti-remake remake.

Rated 04 Mar 2008

Report

Ytadel

Rated 26 Oct 2018

Have you ever been watching Hitchcock’s Psycho and said to yourself “I like this movie but I just wish that this was in artless color, Norman Bates was really miscast and jacked off, there were weird nonsensical cutaways of nature during the murders and they showed more of the car dragging at the end”? then boy oh boy have i got some good news for u

Rated 26 Oct 2018

Report

vv238

Rated 05 Oct 2018

How does anyone rate something like this? It is a literal shot-for-shot remake. Is it some statement about cinema? A joke? A way to get back at some studio executive who green-lit this project? I have no idea. Well, here's something I do know. Hitchcock is a better director in his sleep than Gus Van Sant is awake. I have another question: why Vince Vaughn? WHY?

Rated 05 Oct 2018

Report

XakkMaster

Rated 04 May 2014

I actually saw a few bits of this one before seeing the original, and I thought William H. Macy and Julianne Moore did well with their roles... but then I watched Hitchcock's masterpiece from start to finish and realized just how silly it is that this even exists. I do believe Van Sant could have made this film his own and done a good job... but as someone else has suggested, I kind of feel like this is an "anti-remake" remake - As if he made the film as an example of why not to touch classics.

Rated 04 May 2014

Report

Paxton

Rated 09 Oct 2012

You know what movie they should remake shot for shot? The Omen. I guess they pretty much did that though. What about remaking something from Japan? That would probably work.

Rated 09 Oct 2012

Report

Bagger

Rated 20 Sep 2012

Yeah yeah, everyone talks about how superfluos this is. But I don't think nearly enough people talk about how horribly miscast Vince Vaugn was. Did they call every actor in the phonebook alphabetically and he was first one to think this wasn't a bad idea?

Rated 20 Sep 2012

Report

gorejunky

Rated 16 Aug 2010

Unnecessary remake of a true Hitchcock classic. The fact that Van Sant went shot for shot was disappointing as he made no attempt to make this story new and exciting. I gave points for Vaughn, he was pretty creepy as Norman!

Rated 16 Aug 2010

Report

jameskey

Rated 30 Sep 2009

Pointless.

Rated 30 Sep 2009

Report

Judo Koala

Rated 09 Aug 2009

I'm amazed that most here seem to have had missed the point with what Van Sant was doing here...Yes, as a film, as a remake, it is awful. But it SHOULD be mentioned that this is precisely what Van Sant was probably going for, and it can be presumed that he acknowledges this isn't--and shouldn't--be a good film, or remake, by any means. As he has stated, he wanted to see what would happen IF one were to remake such a classic. In Layman's terms: it's an experiment. Interesting, but not 'good'.

Rated 09 Aug 2009

Report

KasperL

Rated 05 Jan 2009

What's the point, Gus? What the hell is the point?

Rated 05 Jan 2009

Report

hellsditch

Rated 08 Feb 2008

Why do this? To prove he could? Balls man....BALLS. But still, if this is on TV and I'm just flipping by, I'll stick with it, just to marvel at the fact that it even exists in the first place.

Rated 08 Feb 2008

Report

doctor7

Rated 24 Feb 2007

This just wasn't scary at all. The techniques used in the original worked for their time but just looked silly when they were used here. A real shame as Vince Vaughn and William H. Macy are in this.

Rated 24 Feb 2007

Report

Yiannos

Rated 07 Dec 2019

Pointless remake has sometimes been defended as an interesting 'postmodern experiment', but it proves just how singular Hitchcock's achievement was. It is an abject lesson in how talent eludes rationalisation; we can plot the course, measure shot lengths and frame lines, but true greatness is largely beyond our understanding. Van Sant has copied Hitch's moves here to a fault, yet it's vastly inferior, resulting in a creaky cacophonous clone that is the cinematic equivalent of pod people.

Rated 07 Dec 2019

Report

Pickle_Man

Rated 15 Jun 2019

It's really not all that bad - or good. It just kind of is. If you really hated it I'd challenge you to give me a damning reason that doesn't reference the original. The constant uber bright lighting gives it a real 90s TV look that's really inappropriate for the tone, and the performances are a little flat, but I was more apathetic than repulsed.

Rated 15 Jun 2019

Report

buffratings

Rated 22 Jul 2017

Gus Van Sant's dull remake of Alfred Hitchcock's influential Psycho is wholly unimpressive, featuring a cringe-worthy performance from Vince Vaughn and laughable camerawork trying to capture the style of the original that just comes across as off-putting here.

Rated 22 Jul 2017

Report

metalhank

Rated 13 Apr 2017

Decent remake and I believe most of the actors did a pretty good job for such a daunting task of trying to do such a classic. Anyone giving this super low ratings clearly didn't like the original as it is the same story.

Rated 13 Apr 2017

Report

djross

Rated 04 Sep 2016

Never clone alone.

Rated 04 Sep 2016

Report

Shosanna

Rated 05 Mar 2013

"Okay, so here's the deal: we'll make a shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, except that Vince Vaughn will be completely miscast as Norman Bates and in one of the scenes we'll add in the sound of him jerking off!" "Brilliant, Gus, this is surely an awesome idea!" (1/5)

Rated 05 Mar 2013

Report

closedmouth

Rated 01 Jul 2012

People only hated this because Hitchcock is a sacred cow for some reason. I think it's a great commentary on originality in filmmaking and remakes in general, and the acting and photography is much better (although Heche and Macy are weird choices for their roles). It does suppress Gus's natural instincts (as demonstrated in his death trilogy), but he makes the most of it anyway.

Rated 01 Jul 2012

Report

moraesfelipe

Rated 06 May 2012

Catchy in its aspiration to redo the original, but, of course, unnecessary. Even so, this is underrated as a devoted homage from Gus to Hitchcock: it's clearly a copy, but finally, decades later, Bates (or Gus) could enjoy himself. It's one of the most remarkable shots in the director's career, when he dares to create something new out of such a delicate remake. The scene Hitchcock couldn't shoot. The scene Gus is used to shoot, making Psycho his own film for some seconds. His dream came true.

Rated 06 May 2012

Report

axleblaze

Rated 17 Mar 2012

The problem with this movie isn't so much that it didn't' need to exist and more that it just can't measure up. In the end this isn't a shot for shot remake, it just tries to be. So many small things are off or just not as well shot as they were in the original. Sure this is nitpicking but this movie begs to have it's nits picked.

Rated 17 Mar 2012

Report

Noblet

Rated 27 Sep 2010

Pointless.

Rated 27 Sep 2010

Report

Derekstar

Rated 03 Aug 2010

So this film succeeded in a sense, by making me want to re-watch the original. Even technically, all these years later, the original is superior. I re watched the two shower scenes back to back, because something didn't feel right. In the original I feel something in my gut. I feel nothing in the 1998 version. Broadly speaking, Vince Vaughn is overplaying his hand. He's playing crazy. On the whole this version just feels kind of stagy and phony and icky.

Rated 03 Aug 2010

Report

ToddBolondz

Rated 26 Jul 2010

Our legs are still feeling the vibrations from Alfred Hitchcock's seismic ground-breaking. This will always be regarded as his masterpiece.

Rated 26 Jul 2010

Report

Bitch Alert

Rated 29 Apr 2010

An intriguing study on the concept of recreating a masterpiece shot by shot. Obviously the end result is garbage, but so much has gone wrong here that the -98 Psycho is actually one that craves for multiple viewings.

Rated 29 Apr 2010

Report

TheDiceman

Rated 24 Nov 2009

Poor remake.

Rated 24 Nov 2009

Report

omgfridge

Rated 18 May 2009

How does something this bad occur with the talent it has at its disposal. Please for the love of god, watch Hitchcock's masterpiece instead.

Rated 18 May 2009

Report

nandorizzi

Rated 18 May 2009

I dont believe in remake of classics. Are never good. Even this one with good actors, good director. Remake are only acceptable when a film is badly made, but has a good story.

Rated 18 May 2009

Report

Alex Watkins

Rated 01 Mar 2009

Vince Vaughn masturbating lol

Rated 01 Mar 2009

Report

Attached Eon

Rated 17 Sep 2008

gus van sant proves just how little of a hitchcock he is. "here let's take the original movie, do exactly the same thing and resell it! It'll be an artistic masterpiece and I can just photocopy the screenplay." what garbage, gus van sant. you are a lazy prick and your movies are terrible and boring and lack any emotional feeling unless you have extraordinarily good talent on your side. this was not the case here.

Rated 17 Sep 2008

Report

Vandelay1

Rated 27 Jun 2008

Why?

Rated 27 Jun 2008

Report

paulofilmo

Rated 07 Apr 2008

Watchable, but I hugely resent my watching this before the original -- not knowing any better at the time. This makes it beyond superfluous, bordering on offensive.

Rated 07 Apr 2008

Report

torontodog

Rated 31 Jan 2008

Why?

Rated 31 Jan 2008

Report

Bene

Rated 14 Jan 2008

Talk about remakes that nobody needed...

Rated 14 Jan 2008

Report

ozymandius10

Rated 09 Jan 2008

Cover songs and remakes are fine when the source material could use improving and you've got a capable artist at the helm, but they don't work when an inferior artist is trying to re-create a masterpiece. It isn't even a re-creation because they use the same shots and techniques and it just looks hokey and doesn't seem genuine. Vince Vaughn is fine (Anne Heche is horrible), but Anthony Perkins just destroys him in every way imaginable in his portayal of Norman Bates. Just see the original.

Rated 09 Jan 2008

Report

Harmonica

Rated 14 Aug 2007

100/10. As an experimental art project the idea is fantastic - Gus Van Sant produced a competent reproduction of the classic Hitchcock original, which asserts once and for all that there is an intangible 'other' quality present in the classics that is simply unobtainable, even with a shot for shot remake. ...of course, as a direct result this film is absolutely dire with entirely no merit on its own terms, but should probably still be seen by everyone. Hack Hollywood producers take note!

Rated 14 Aug 2007

Report

TripleSH

Rated 14 Aug 2007

You can tell this movie just was not received well and was a horrible mistake because Vince Vaughn went right back to doing comedy without missing a beat, and we thank him for that.

Rated 14 Aug 2007

Report

BattleToad

Rated 14 Aug 2007

It's a pointless remake. Little is changed, and things that have are things that were only made more obvious. Some of the original's subtleties are what made it so great, such as what Norman may or many not be doing while looking in on a girl preparing to shower. Highlighting them only undermines Hitchcock's brilliant original. It just isn't worth it. Total crap!

Rated 14 Aug 2007

Report

TheDenizen

Rated 14 Aug 2007

WHY? Remakes are almost never as good as the originals, let alone shot for shot remakes with shittier actors.

Rated 14 Aug 2007

Report

loserville

Rated 27 May 2007

Pointless.

Rated 27 May 2007

Report

TedDedon

Rated 20 Mar 2007

Faithful remake of the original classic by Alfred Hitchcock but it lacks that emotional tie you had with the first one. Just really not that interesting.

Rated 20 Mar 2007

Report

spookyjon

Rated 07 Jan 2007

It's not as god awful as people say it is...I swear.

Rated 07 Jan 2007

Report

Hadleyreis

Rated 20 Jun 2023

What was Hitchcock thinking?

Rated 20 Jun 2023

Report

hotsake

Rated 10 Nov 2022

I don't care that this exists but why is it so boring and blandly acted?

Rated 10 Nov 2022

Report

BruhCringe

Rated 16 Nov 2021

Оценка - 42 Общая - 43 Режиссура - 1 Постановка - 2 Целостность - 2 Монтаж - 2 Выполнение своей цели - 1 Флоу - 2 Личное - 2 Атмосфера - 1 Эмоции - 1 Актерская игра - 2 Синематографи - 3 Визуал - 3 Звук - 0 Продакшн дизайн - 2 Костюмы - 2

Rated 16 Nov 2021

Report

ADragon91

Rated 20 Sep 2021

Absolutely unforgivable.

Rated 20 Sep 2021

Report

silent disco

Rated 21 Aug 2021

Van Sant sought to see if a film could be replicated 1:1 purely as experiment, admitted later it could not, and yet the rhetoric is still that he possesses some monstrous ego that attempted to usurp the original. Ever misunderstood. The result is indeed a movie wearing another's skin but that uncanny layer and rigid alien-like mimickry of beloved performance inverts the text into an experience of its own design. Van Sant reveals that exact replication somehow changes what's scary about Psycho.

Rated 21 Aug 2021

Report

sfxy

Rated 27 Jan 2021

Neither "good" nor "bad." I almost can't rate it. Very odd experiment that I find completely fascinating. Warholian. Less a film and more "a very peculiar thing that happened." An art piece, kind of. Deserves consideration.

Rated 27 Jan 2021

Report

SolomonBurrr

Rated 28 Jul 2020

37.4.

Rated 28 Jul 2020

Report

Vaudevillian

Rated 13 May 2020

Underrated experiment by a true autuer.

Rated 13 May 2020

Report

rihrey

Rated 12 Mar 2020

Literally wtf, what even is the point of this film. Even if you don't compare it to the original, it's still a really bad film lol. The actors were just like "alright yeah let's just get over with this" (and omfg Vince Vaughn is so hilariously terrible). This feels like a parody mostly, but not a good one.

Rated 12 Mar 2020

Report

doyler29

Rated 20 Jan 2020

I suppose Gus Van Sant deserves some credit for taking the opportunity afforded to him by "Good Will Hunting" and using it to make this strange exercise in film theory. It seems he wanted to demonstrate that this film is pointless, and yes ... yes it is. Seeing it back in the 90's, that's what I came away with. Watching it now, I'd add that it's an actively bad film.

Rated 20 Jan 2020

Report

EvilMangoes

Rated 08 Sep 2019

Report

Darren

Rated 01 Jan 2019

Go in with an open mind. Has some of the best cinematography Doyle has done. A great experiment.

Rated 01 Jan 2019

Report

WWallce4prez

Rated 24 Nov 2018

Over the last decade it took me three times to finish this remake. I would always decide to stop the film and put on its much superior predecessor. A film that reminds you that there is a better film to watch may be a tribute but it isn't what you should be watching.

Rated 24 Nov 2018

Report

TrixRabbi

Rated 26 Nov 2014

You could direct a high school version better than this.

Rated 26 Nov 2014

Report

SDPlissken

Rated 14 Jul 2014

Inevitably, you just have to ask... Why?

Rated 14 Jul 2014

Report

bof

Rated 09 Jul 2014

The kindest thing you can say about this utterly pointless remake of "Psycho" is that at least it pre-empted any OTHER attempt to make a pointless remake of "Psycho". Casting aside, it's not really awful, just... again, "pointless" springs to mind. But hey, it could have been made by Kevin Williamson and starred Josh Hartnett. Count your blessings.

Rated 09 Jul 2014

Report

Farzan

Rated 24 Jun 2014

Really? Was this even necessary? This is the very definition of plagiarism.

Rated 24 Jun 2014

Report

Ryan Lueders

Rated 05 Nov 2013

This was awful. At first I spent most of the movie trying to figure out if they were trying to do the entire old movie's lines verbatim. When I finally figured out that mystery and moved on, I realized that this movie should not have been made at all. The original is so perfect and this is a poorly done xeroxed copy that was low on toner. Plus, the added in vulgar scene during Crane's shower really didn't need to be in there. I assume they were being "edgy". Vaughn was a terrible Norman.

Rated 05 Nov 2013

Report

glm01

Rated 07 Oct 2013

42.000

Rated 07 Oct 2013

Report

EntertainMe

Rated 02 Sep 2013

This film, at its absolute best, offers a few interesting little takes and variations on the classic original Psycho (1960). For most of its running time, however, it's a frustratingly pointless exercise that fails both at copying the original exactly and 'improving' on it. Most of the original film's tension is neutered via flat, awkward performances and some truly awful takes on the iconic 'shock scenes.'

Rated 02 Sep 2013

Report

klea

Rated 19 May 2013

If you're going to remake a movie, you have to put your own touch on it somehow. Copying a movie literally shot-for-shot & line-for-line is 100% pointless

Rated 19 May 2013

Report

bellafilm

Rated 04 Mar 2013

not a good remake

Rated 04 Mar 2013

Report

TreyAtwood

Rated 20 Jan 2013

Not so bad.

Rated 20 Jan 2013

Report

Alex WS

Rated 19 Jan 2013

Shot-for-shot remake. Not much to say really.

Rated 19 Jan 2013

Report

msdstc

Rated 25 Dec 2012

lol

Rated 25 Dec 2012

Report

DavidThomson

Rated 02 Sep 2012

To see just one remake like this teaches us that the amalgam of casting, atmosphere, and the moment is always unique. Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins are so missing (not to mention missed) that you begin to realize anew just what an indirect love story Hitchcock left in 1960: $40,000 has become $400,000, Norman has lost his Eroica Symphony recording (he has a Tammi Wynette and George Jones album instead), and he has a pornographic magazine - as if Mother would have let that in the house. [tMoP]

Rated 02 Sep 2012

Report

scurry

Rated 08 Jul 2012

The same thing you've already seen once. And it looks ridiculous because filmmaking has moved on. Well, I thought so anyway.

Rated 08 Jul 2012

Report

brandons

Rated 23 Jun 2012

Van Sant's pointless remake neither improves or illuminates Hitchcock's original.

Rated 23 Jun 2012

Report

gkfilm

Rated 23 Jun 2012

2 of 4 -- Entertainment. 0 of 2 -- Food For Thought. 0 of 2 -- Opens The Heart. 0 of 2 -- Sustainability Values.

Rated 23 Jun 2012

Report

ahamel7896

Rated 22 May 2012

If Van Sant is arguing against the idea of remakes, he largely succeeds. Its just a stupid argument is all.

Rated 22 May 2012

Report

mcaustic

Rated 25 Apr 2012

It works as an experiment examining the tyranny of small differences.

Rated 25 Apr 2012

Report

tinelove

Rated 29 Nov 2011

Great.

Rated 29 Nov 2011

Report

SirStuckey

Rated 20 Aug 2011

Do you like pointless things? If yes, then watch 1998's Psycho today!

Rated 20 Aug 2011

Report

braddad68

Rated 23 Jun 2011

No reason for this remake.

Rated 23 Jun 2011

Report

rewilde

Rated 04 Mar 2011

Utterly pointless.

Rated 04 Mar 2011

Report

VCohaagen

Rated 12 Feb 2011

pointless

Rated 12 Feb 2011

Report

johnny geo

Rated 19 Jan 2011

i would give the original 90 so....

Rated 19 Jan 2011

Report

glm

Rated 24 Dec 2010

43.000

Rated 24 Dec 2010

Report

TnMovieFan2

Rated 23 Dec 2010

Most pointless movie ever made.

Rated 23 Dec 2010

Report

strangefan

Rated 08 Oct 2010

Gus Van Sant's daring experiment falters mainly from terrible performances and a lack of humor.

Rated 08 Oct 2010

Report

jake_la

Rated 27 Sep 2010

I can't find a single reason why Gus Van Sant made this film.A shot-by-shot reamke of one of cinema's greatest classics,that has nothing to add to the original.And,of course,is without Hitch's touch and craftmanship,this film is just a great failure.

Rated 27 Sep 2010

Report

hellboy76

Rated 21 Sep 2010

Even if one had never seen Psycho this would not be a good movie. It's not that it isn't a fairly talented cast, it's that there is no passion, like they seem to know their efforts are futile.

Rated 21 Sep 2010

Report

Johnny Flynn

Rated 03 Sep 2010

Wasn't bad just completely unnecessary.

Rated 03 Sep 2010

Report

PazuzuTerror

Rated 25 Jul 2010

awful shot for shot remake of the classic original, i saw it once years ago and it shouldnt have been made

Rated 25 Jul 2010

Report

spleen

Rated 15 Jun 2010

Not really as bad as it's made out to be but still a pointless remake. One of the few times I've noticed bad editing: cuts to a dominatrix masks during the stairwell stabbing, and closeups of a fly during the shower murder. WTF? Pretentious arthouse crap disguised as a thriller.

Rated 15 Jun 2010

Report

endellion

Rated 06 Jun 2010

not bad for a remake

Rated 06 Jun 2010

Report

leadfoot

Rated 15 Mar 2010

The original had something special and this one just seemed very dull. The idea of a shot-for-shot remake is neat to talk about and think about, but in the end... not so good.

Rated 15 Mar 2010

Report